"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"?-?" wrote in message
. com...

"teachrmama" wrote in

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just
isn't
done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the
daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him that his
other
children were irrelevant.

Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my
child would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the
country.
How does this work?

I don't know about your case. In my husband's case, he was told that
the
almost-13-year-old he had just found out about was the only one the
courts
would look at in setting CS--and that our 2 daughters were irrelevant to
how much $$$ he would be assigned to pay.

When are you going to accept that not only are subsequent children
irrelevant in CS cases for prior children, but subsequemnt wives/husbands
are, too?

Subsequent children are relevant when the CP has a second child with the
same father. The subsequent child gets a lower CS amount than the first
child.

But the baby whelpers who have multiple children with multiple fathers get
each case treated in a vacuum. This allows them to collect "first child" CS
money multiple times. Three children with three different men pays more
than three children with the same man.


Unless you think that when the CP has more children, the CS should go up?

It already does go up. What is your point?